Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/20/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant’s specification does not describe a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the recited fiber optic cables to provide an illumination mechanism.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding the last two lines of claim 1, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart US5551379.
Regarding claim 1, Hart teaches a leash for handling a pet, comprising:
a flexible leash line having a first end and a second end (16/20/22 of figure 2);
a handle at the first end (near 26) and a clasp at the second end (18);
a curtain hanging from the leash line, wherein the curtain extends along a portion or the entire length of the leash line (86/28/54/76/34),
wherein the curtain has a height that varies along the length of the leash line (by way of length adjusters 84/30/56/78/36);
and wherein the curtain acts as a barrier to deter or prevent other animals from passing under the leash line (where a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, because if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim);
but does not specify such that a portion of the curtain closer to the handle is taller than a portion of the curtain closer to the clasp.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such orientation to the curtain, in order to meet various user curtain clasp orientation preferences in various orientation uses.
Regarding claim 2, Hart teaches the leash of claim 1, wherein the curtain is divided into a plurality of segments or strands (figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Hart teaches the leash of claim 2, wherein a height of a first strand of the curtain is taller than a second strand of the curtain, wherein the first strand is closer to the handle of the leash than the second strand (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 4, Hart teaches the leash of claim 1, wherein the curtain and the leash line are integral to each other, and wherein a top portion of the curtain is configured as the leash line (figure 2 where the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “integral” is “necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental”).
Regarding claim 5, Hart teaches the leash of claim 1, wherein the curtain is attached to the leash line via an attachment mechanism, wherein the attachment mechanism is one or a combination of an openable tube, a closed tube, loops, buttons, snaps, hooks, shackles, clasps, rings, and stitches (12/82/60/etc. of figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Hart teaches the leash of claim 5, wherein the leash further comprises a track embedded in the leash line configured to allow a handler to adjust a position of the curtain along the leash line (20 of figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Hart teaches the leash of claim 6, wherein the leash further comprises one or more adjustable stops on the track for a handler to adjust a position of the curtain on the leash line (clamp 62/64 described as adjustable by way of being looped through 12 and secured by a user which describes the adjustability to provide the securement at various locations).
Regarding claim 8, Hart teaches the leash of claim 5, wherein the curtain is removable from the leash line (by way of the attachment mechanisms previously described and shown).
Regarding claim 9, Hart teaches the leash of claim 1, but does not specify wherein the curtain is configured with a deterrent mechanism, wherein the deterrent mechanism includes one or a combination of textures on the curtain, sound-emitting devices, illumination lights, smell or taste deterrents, and vibration mechanisms.
However, reflective texture/material is known at least in the leash art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such material, in order to increase safety visibility for the user.
Regarding claim 10, Hart teaches the leash of claim 1, wherein the curtain is configured with an illumination mechanism, wherein the illumination mechanism includes one or a combination of phosphorescent materials, reflective materials (see claim 9 rejection), in-built lights, luminescent materials, and optical fiber.
Regarding claim 11, Hart teaches the leash of claim 10, wherein the curtain is divided into a plurality of segments (as previously shown), but does not specify wherein the plurality of segments include or are fiber optic cables.
However, such type of elements are known in general. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such cables, in order to increase safety visibility for the user; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification describes such embodiment as merely optional; therefore, it is clear that this detail is not critically novel to applicant’s invention.
Regarding claim 12, Hart teaches the leash of claim 1, wherein the curtain is formed of one or a combination of cloth, web (column 4 lines 10-11), mesh, net, fringes, and tassels.
Regarding claim 13, Hart teaches the leash of claim 1, but does not specify wherein the leash is a retractable leash with a retractable mechanism.
However, retractable mechanisms are very well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such mechanisms, in order to enhance adjustability of the system for various configurations of use; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification describes such embodiment as merely optional; therefore, it is clear that this detail is not critically novel to applicant’s invention.
Regarding claim 14, Hart teaches the leash of claim 1, wherein the leash is a split leash further comprising: a second leash line; and a second curtain hanging from the second leash line (figure 12).
Regarding claim 15, Hart teaches the leash of claim 14, wherein the split leash further comprises a swivel mechanism (figure 12 shows multiple instances of the well known types of swivel mechanisms that are well known in the art).
Regarding claim 16, Hart teaches a method of manufacturing the leash of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection; The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument against the 112(a) rejection of claim 11 is not convincing. The details provided in the arguments are not enabled within the specification as originally presented and/or provided in NPL. The arguments that describe fiber optic cables being old, obvious, and well known still does not provide applicant’s specification with a description as to a way to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the recited fiber optic cables to provide an illumination mechanism.
Responses to the remainder of applicant’s arguments can be found in the updated rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644